From Justice Sotomayor's dissent from the denial of certiorari today in Villarreal v. Alaniz, which strikes me as quite persuasive:
Petitioner Priscilla Villarreal is a reporter who was arrested for doing something journalists do every day: posing questions to a public official. Specifically, Villarreal twice texted with a police officer to corroborate information Villarreal already knew about events that had occurred within her community. That officer voluntarily provided the information Villarreal sought, and Villarreal published those facts, consistent with her role as a journalist.
Six months later, Villarreal was arrested for asking those questions. {Villarreal [was accused] of violating Texas Penal Code Ann. §39.06(c), which states that "[a] person commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit …, he solicits or receives from a public servant information that: (1) the public servant has access to by means of his office or employment; and (2) has not been made public." In the 23 years since the statute was enacted, there is no documented arrest in Webb County, let alone conviction, for violating §39.06(c).}
Making matters worse, Villarreal alleges that the arrest followed a months-long effort by a police department and district attorney's office to retaliate against her because they disliked much of her reporting on their activities. Of course, that reporting was often critical of them.
It should be obvious that this arrest violated the First Amendment. Yet the Fifth Circuit held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and now Villarreal is left without a remedy. The Court today makes a grave error by declining to hear this case….
